If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I can see where you're coming from on that, but I've known several Wiccans over the years, and none of them were that far gone. It reads more like somebody who actually thought all those 'Gender studies' courses she took at an expensive traditionally-female private college were really some kind of serious courses, and then after taking another laugher or two in 'Contemporary Fine Arts' decided she was an artist.

I can see where you're coming from on that, but I've known several Wiccans over the years, and none of them were that far gone. It reads more like somebody who actually thought all those 'Gender studies' courses she took at an expensive traditionally-female private college were really some kind of serious courses, and then after taking another laugher or two in 'Contemporary Fine Arts' decided she was an artist.

I used to practice Wicca in my younger days.

It's more from the magazines and materials I read than from actual practice, but there are several Wiccan authors who advocate the use of menstrual fluids in rituals.
Z. Budapest is the one who first comes to mind. In some branches of Wicca, the line between religious practices and the gender studies crap is a fine line.

The hippie Wiccans who used to publish the Green Egg hated those guys, and were always trying to smear them as Nazis.

The Green Egg was published by the Church of All Worlds, a pagan group that took all the practices from A Stranger In A Strange Land and made a religion out of them.

Yeah, I remember reading something some of our Wiccan Pagan friends had in their place, really badmouthing the 'Odinists,' which to be fair included (especially back then) all the nutty Aryan types. However, in more recent times the Asatru Pagans have taken a certain amount of root in the military community and vets who have a much more socially-normal view of racial issues.

I can see where you're coming from on that, but I've known several Wiccans over the years, and none of them were that far gone. It reads more like somebody who actually thought all those 'Gender studies' courses she took at an expensive traditionally-female private college were really some kind of serious courses, and then after taking another laugher or two in 'Contemporary Fine Arts' decided she was an artist.

Certainly, at least one of the DUmmies who is defending her fits that bill. Gravity Collapse is doing a very good impression of a complete lunatic who has been educated beyond her intelligence:

Saying it is gross or silly or stupid shit is not adequate. It is indicative of reactionary nonsense. Sorry not every response is the right one.
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)
are indicative of a bunch of Philistines trying to trivialize a piece of art and political protest because they don't understand it and it makes them feel uncomfortable.

I'm less concerned with people poo-pooing me because I refuse to espouse the classic liberal "everyone is right" nonsense in the face of a wave of sexist responses.
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.

I actually understand the purpose of the piece here. Whereas it seems to be pretty clear that most of the negative commenters in this thread don't have the foggiest idea.
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.

Shock jocks tend to be sexist, racist, right-wing assholes. The source of their shockingness is their hatred or idiocy.

Whereas this art piece is meant to shock for entirely different reasons. Questioning taboo is almost always shocking. That it is shocking does not mean the person addressing taboo is lacking in talent.
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.

And here's why: Your use of the term 'Philistines' shows us that you deny the sincere responses of anyone who doesn't share your view of aesthetics. Please don't try to tell us that there's only one valid aesthetic model, or we will be fully justified in ignoring you entirely.

We don't poo-poo your defense of this work because we think everyone's opinion is equally valid (I'm happy to state categorically that your opinion doesn't hold a candle to mine), although any viewer's response to the piece should be respected, since response is what art is all about.

You have no way of knowing that those who criticize the piece 'don't understand' it. I think most of us understand it quite well, and dismiss it as trivial self-aggrandizement. The fact of the matter is that the piece (and the artist) are self-trivializing and those of us who dismiss her work don't really have to do any heavy lifting in that department.

'Political protest?' Please. To the degree that there is a political element to this work is is extremely slight and obvious to the point of ridiculousness.

And, while there are quite possibly some sexist comments in this thread (which the artist has deliberately courted by explicitly stating 'I'm going to confront you with my vagina'), most of the comments I've looked at consider the piece on its (rather meagre) merits.

You are right on one thing. There doesn't seem to be much heavy lifting in the dismissal of her work. The dismissals seems to revolve around the silliness or stupidity of the work. Or, as can be seen down thread, apparently she shoved a ball of yarn into her vagina because needs to have sex with a man. None of these responses are particularly intellectual in nature.
O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't.